Standing Committee B

[Mr. Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Private Security Industry Bill [Lords]

Clause 19 - Powers of entry and inspection

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made two points of substance, and I can reassure him on both of them. He asked whether the purpose of the inspectorate was serious. My categorical and clear answer is that it is designed to enforce the edicts of the SIA. As he said, it will be an independent body that will not owe allegiance to any part of the industry, nor will it have a duty to be courteous or polite in particular situations. It will be rigorous and effective. I hope that I can set his mind at rest on that.
 My right hon. Friend also asked about the meaning of ``reasonable''. An amendment to include such wording was accepted in the other place. As I said on Second Reading, what constitutes a reasonable time may vary according to the circumstances. An obvious case is that 2 o'clock on a Friday morning may well be a reasonable time for door supervisors, but for others it may not. The question of reasonableness must be related to the nature of the business and not the regular nine-to-five day, 46-week year, that a normal working life might imply. It will depend on the particular aspects of the industry in question.

Rosie Winterton: To clarify, could a wheelclamping company be inspected at night? For example a wheelclamping company may not provide adequate lighting of notices warning of wheelclamping, which is one of the ways that such companies can entrap people. If an inspection can take place not only in the company's headquarters but in the car parks, could it take place at night?

Charles Clarke: I think that I can satisfy my hon. Friend on that matter. The powers of entry and inspection cover all the powers described, including for wheelclampers. Subsection (3) says that the power shall be operated only at a reasonable hour. The word ``reasonable'' should be defined by the working practices of the industries concerned. I can give an absolute assurance on the example that she gave. Obviously, the person or organisation being inspected can subsequently try to make a case about what is or is not reasonable, but I place it on the record that the Government, in proposing that form of words, intend that the word ``reasonable'' should relate to the working practices of the industries concerned.

Nick Hawkins: I know that the Minister accepts that the powers in the clause are quite broad. An authorised person can enter the premises of anyone appearing to be a regulated person. That is a much broader test than merely suspecting that someone might be regulated, and certainly than having reason to believe that he is. What remedy would there be for someone whose premises were entered wrongfully? That is important, because anyone who obstructs an authorised person is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) and could be subject to imprisonment.

Charles Clarke: Clause 20 describes the authority's duty to prepare and publish a document containing its guidance on the use of the powers, which will reflect my comments about the word ``reasonable''.
 I think that I am right in saying that the first point of redress for people who believe that the power has been abused is the law of the land and the courts. More profoundly, as we said earlier in relation to the way in which the SIA will operate, the authority will take account of experience in considering and revising its guidance and updating its practices. It will have to take into account the matter to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention when considering its future practices and how to get them right. 
 I hope that that clarifies those points. With that, I hope that we can agree that clause 19 should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Guidance as to exercise of power of entry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I have one quick question, which arises from the Minister's response to my question on clause 19. Do the Government currently expect the people who will be authorised to undertake entries into premises to be officers of the SIA or will the authority authorise others to carry out inspections on its behalf?

Charles Clarke: The phrasing leaves it open to the authority to decide how best to proceed. My expectation—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking about—is that the authority is likely to use its own inspectors. The nature of that arrangement will evolve during the process. I can certainly envisage the authority deciding to retain other inspectors, such as local government officers, to carry out its functions. It might conceivably retain private companies, although I cannot quite imagine that. I do not want to prejudge precisely how those functions will be carried out, which is why the clause is phrased openly. However, my expectation is that the key inspection function will be with the authority, which has the power to address the relevant matters.
 With that, I urge that clause 20 stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Access to enhanced criminal records certificates

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I have another quick question, which I hope that the Minister can answer equally quickly.
 As the Bill stands, the criminal records certificate requirement is intended to apply only to door supervisors, or bouncers. What if a wheelclamping operative has been arrested, cautioned or convicted for blackmail, extortion or threatening behaviour?

Charles Clarke: That again is a matter to consider. We have singled out door supervisors for the enhanced level of checks because they are a source of particular public concern in view of their frequent contact with young people in nightclubs. They have often been involved in incidents of violence and in drug offences, such as those to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred. That is why our current view is that they should be subject to higher levels of checks than exist in other sectors. I say that that is our current view, because the hon. Gentleman rightly said that we might take a different view of the provisions as they carry through in practice. I give a commitment that we will review them in the light of experience, to determine how we should act.
 With that, I urge that clause 21 stand part of the Bill 
 Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Orders and regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Bercow: The purpose of the clause is clear, but its interpretation might not be. Will the Minister confirm that it does not provide in every case, perhaps because it is not intended to do so, an answer to the question whether the order or regulation about which there is debate, inquiry or controversy will be subject to the affirmative procedure? Does he accept that the clause admits of different treatment of different orders, without advance notice of it? It enables the Government to decide the chosen format.

Charles Clarke: Most of the statutory instruments that will need to or may be introduced will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The exceptions are shown in subsection (3). The first exception is commencement orders made under clause 26(2). Commencement orders are not subject to negative or affirmative resolution. Secondly, orders made in relation to paragraphs 1 or 7 of schedule 2, which we shall shortly debate, will be subject to affirmative resolution.
 An order made under paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 could bring any activity conducted by the private security industry within the definition of 
``activities of a security operative'', 
which are regulated by the Bill. For example, the Secretary of State could make an order adding the activities of groups such as alarm installers or locksmiths to the list of activities for which a licence will be required from the SIA. That is the kind of approach that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has advocated throughout our debates.

John Bercow: Is the Minister saying that such a proposal, which could perfectly reasonably arise later and might well not be anticipated now, would be subject to a 90-minute debate on the Floor of the House?

Charles Clarke: Such a proposal will be subject to the affirmative resolution, and therefore to those procedures.
 An order made under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2 would allow the Secretary of State to subject certain activities to the additional controls that the Bill currently proposes for only wheelclampers and door supervisors at pubs and clubs. Such an order would require those working in designated activities to be licensed regardless of whether they were employed in-house or under contract. 
 We believe that the orders under paragraphs 1 and 7 of schedule 2 are significant enough, in extending the powers of the Bill, to require the affirmative procedure. That is why they are excepted from the general requirement of negative procedure as set out in the clause. I hope that that is clear, and I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bruce George: The accountancy profession must be among the heaviest hitters in the relevant sphere. All its venerable organisations are listed to ensure that we know what ``relevant accountancy body'' means. My point relates to what was said earlier about the many investigative organisations. One of your senior civil servants met a group of them on Friday, thanks to your kind invitation—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is attributing to me a power and authority, a meeting and a facility, that I do not have. I am sure that he means the Minister.

Bruce George: I am thankful that my experience of working in Standing Committees is rare and of considerable age. If I fail procedurally, I duly apologise. I am trying to be most compliant with your wishes, Mr. Winterton. My point—it is regrettable that your intervention delayed me from finishing it earlier—was that many legitimate investigative organisations will be subject to licensing. Their direct competitors will be the big accountancy companies, all of which have forensic accountancy departments engaged in investigation. Those will run in parallel with the organisations that will be licensed.
 I know that it would be more than the Minister's life is worth to change the law to put accountancy and investigation out of the frame. I merely want to make the point that such discrimination will put those to be licensed at an unfair disadvantage. If it is proven to him or his successor that such competition is disadvantageous and unfair, I hope that they will consider our handiwork and see whether anything further can be done to level the playing field.

Charles Clarke: We debated the issue on Second Reading, although not at length, and my right hon. Friend makes some serious points. However, I refer him to the Second Reading debate. There is no intention to advantage the great corporations. I know exactly what he refers to when he talks about an unlevel playing field between the big companies and others, but I am aware that there can be confusion on the subject, not least as a result of his interventions on Second Reading. If, as I hope, the Bill receives Royal Assent, I make a commitment to present it directly to the professions and to set out the position clearly and publicly in writing. We have no intention of skewing the whole business in favour of the KPMGs or Coopers of this world.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Clause 26 - Short title, commencement and extent

Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (5).
 This is the first and last Government amendment in the course of our deliberations. It is designed to remove subsection (5), which was introduced by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege. Although I must not use the word ``procedural'', because I have been ticked off for my abuse of the word, the subsection is a standard procedural device to ensure that this House retains the right to decide financial matters in Bills originating in the other place, and that is why we seek to remove it. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Offence of impersonating a licensed security operative and/or approved contractor

`(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he displays or has in his possession any badge, card or authority which gives the impression that it is a licence or approval issued under the Act.
 (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.'.—[Mr. Bruce George.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Bruce George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause is self-explanatory, but I cannot let you get away with me sitting down so quickly, Mr. Winterton. The private security industry has a high concentration of crooks, charlatans and those who sail close to the wind. The Home Affairs Committee produced a great deal of evidence, and the police have periodically produced evidence. A decade ago, a report by David Owen, the then Chief Constable of North Wales, was leaked. It contained a long list of criminal offences. Saturday's newspaper included some interesting vignettes on crime in the private security industry. We must do all that we can, even through access to criminal records at the highest level, to ensure that the incidence of crime in the security industry is kept to an absolute minimum. We shall never eliminate crime in the security industry, any more than we shall eliminate it in the police. 
 The new clause is an attempt to deal with a potential criminal activity of security firm owners and personnel, be they bouncers or security guards. There will be a lucrative market in the sale of false badges and security identification cards enabling security personnel to avoid applying for a licence that they might not get and for which they would have to pay. I know that it happens with bouncers. Why go for a training programme when one can spend £5 and get a card? When one turns up for a door supervision job, one can display the appropriate documentation. 
 The Minister will probably say that the matter is dealt with by some other provision. However, I am trying to ensure that a person is guilty of a specific offence under the legislation. The penalties will be severe. The measure will not deal with the whole problem of criminality in the industry, but neither will access to criminal records. 
 The meticulous interview techniques of good companies will also not, on their own, deal with criminality. I said that the cost to a good company of interviewing a candidate was £700, but I have since been told that it is £1,200. A good company will spend £1,200 just to get to the point of sending the prospective employee's documentation off to the licensing authority. People can go bad even when they have been appointed on the basis of such a rigorous process. Even those who are not strictly criminals should be criminalised if they impersonate security officers or private investigators.

Nick Hawkins: If the right hon. Gentleman presses his new clause to a Division, we will support it. We agree with what he says. Unfortunately, there will be an opportunity for people who are more ingenious than honest to trade in badges and apparent identification documents. We agree with him that the Bill would be stronger if such a provision, with the criminal sanctions applied to it, were included in it. We will listen with interest to the Minister's response to the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, but we support it and the spirit that lies behind it.

Simon Hughes: It certainly ought to be an offence for someone to claim to be something that they are not and present a document that purports to be something that it is not. There is a common view on that. Does the Minister believe that any of the prospective offences contemplated by the new clause are adequately covered by the existing legislation?
 If the law is clear, there is no need for additional offences to be created. However, I would like to know what existing offences would be committed by somebody carrying out the activities set out in the new clause. Would it be necessary to rephrase or adapt the existing law to make it clear that it covers those activities, so that anybody with an interest knows what the consequences are if they offend? Could that be easily done?

Charles Clarke: I was interested in the reference to badges that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made. Throughout my time in the House, every time that I have seen him, as he stalks the corridors of Parliament, he has been wearing the same badge: the pound sign badge that he is wearing now. I wondered what kind of interest he was seeking to represent by wearing it all the time.

Nick Hawkins: A genuine one.

Charles Clarke: A genuine one, he says, from a sedentary position. That is as strong as a pound.

John Bercow: I apologise to you, Mr. Winterton, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath—perhaps also to the Minister—for the fact that I inadvertently left my badge at home. Whether the Minister finds the prospect of seeing such badges edifying or not, I have another wheeze in store for him. It will come when I sport my very desirable pound sign tie.

Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the Minister will not spend too long replying to that intervention.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has forestalled me; I had noticed that, for the first time, he is not wearing a badge. I wondered whether, in his drive to the centre of his party and to fulfil his leadership ambitions, he had decided to dump that aspect of his ideological baggage.
 The case is as stated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Every member of the Committee no doubt agrees with the ambition of the new clause, but the matter is dealt with in existing legislation. It is right that properly licensed operatives should be able clearly to show themselves as such. The format of the licence and the approval will therefore be important. The format will be prescribed in regulations. It will need to be portable, easily recognisable and difficult to tamper with or to reproduce illicitly. 
 The assurance that my right hon. Friend is looking for can be found in several pieces of legislation. First, clause 16(2) creates an offence of falsely claiming to be an approved provider of services or being registered in terms that have not been approved by the authority. We put the belt and braces of that clause in the Bill to ensure that such serious matters are recognised as offences. 
 Secondly, any individual who falsely claims to be a licensed security operative is committing offences under existing legislation, particularly the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Theft Act 1968, which deal with attempting to obtain property by deception. Those Acts, combined with the powers under clause 16(2), ensure that unlicensed people who attempt to pass themselves off as licensed security operatives or as approved contractors will be committing criminal offences. They will therefore be liable to prosecution. 
 We do not disagree with one iota of the new clause, but we believe that the Bill and existing legislation together will provide all that is needed to achieve what would have been the effect of the new clause. That is why we resist the new clause, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider not pressing it.

Bruce George: The Bill will be a bit of a mystery to outsiders. Someone running a small private security firm, who accesses the Bill on the internet, will see very little because first, he will have to wait for two or three years before the regulations are made and, secondly, much that he will be looking for will not be in that document. If he cannot access our proceedings or read the Counterfeiting Act of 1797—

Charles Clarke: May I add a word of clarification for my right hon. Friend? Someone looking on the internet will see not only the Bill, but also all the guidance published by the SIA. That will answer all his questions.

Bruce George: The new clause was meant to be informative; the information is being elicited reluctantly. I shall go, as I did during in my footballing career, rarely on the winning side. I am not sure whether, at the end of these proceedings, I shall be on the losing or the winning side. We shall have to wait for three years to see whether our work has any real effect. I hope that it will. I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 - The Security Industry Authority

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 20, line 5, after `members' insert—
`(being at least five but not more than fifteen)'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 10, in page 20, line 14, leave out `five' and insert `three'.

Nick Hawkins: The amendment is designed to change the number of members of the authority. We believe that the Secretary of State has too wide a discretion. The Minister will recall that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established the Electoral Commission; that body bears some similarity to the new authority as it has broad regulatory functions, and is required to keep registers and so on. Section 1(3) of that Act imposes a precise requirement in relation to numbers. It states:
 ``There shall be not less than five, but not more than nine, Electoral Commissioners.'' 
Why cannot something similar be provided in the Bill? 
 The Bill is inconsistent with other legislation promoted by the Minister. Paragraph 1(4) to schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which the Minister and I debated not so many weeks ago, states: 
 ``The total number of members of the Authority shall not at any time be less than eleven.'' 
The Government seem quite happy to put that sort of requirement in other recent legislation. Why not this one? 
 The quorum for the new authority is to be determined at its first meeting, at which at least five members must be present, as provided in paragraph 10(2) of the schedule. However, it is open to the Secretary of State to appoint fewer than five members. The amendment would ensure some consistency within the Bill. We believe that there should be consistency within the Bill and also within the Department. 
 Amendment No. 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, seeks to reduce the maximum time of membership of the authority from five years to three. I do not know whether it is simply a probing amendment—the right hon. Gentleman is nodding—but amendment No. 30 is substantive. We seek to limit the Secretary of State's discretion not to fetter him but to ensure consistency. Even if the Minister cannot accept it, I hope that he will at least consider the matter and table a Government amendment on Report, so that the Bill is consistent with itself and with other recent legislation.

Bruce George: As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested, I believe that a three-year term would be better. I have been a member of various Select Committees for 20 years, but I sometimes think that membership should be limited to six months. Five years is a long time, especially for someone who may not be terribly interested or who makes no contribution to the proceedings. I suspect that a considerable number of people would be prepared to make a contribution—we could get 200 from the private security industry alone, which we would not want. A three-year term would mean that they had to prove their worth. If they were good, their term could be extended, as happened with the old Commission for Racial Equality; if they did not pull their weight and make a real contribution, three years would give the chairman and, initially, the Secretary of State the opportunity to move other people in—there will be many takers. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Charles Clarke: I am not sympathetic to amendment No. 30, but I am to amendment No. 10. The reason for my lack of sympathy for amendment No. 30 is that there is no great virtue in consistency in the size of such bodies. They are created in different circumstances and perform different roles. It would be unnecessarily restrictive to tie ourselves to a minimum of five and maximum of 15 members in the development phase of the SIA in particular, because we are starting from scratch and want to have a consultative process and to ensure that the authority is broadly based.
 However, I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to the extent that I acknowledge that the size of the body is important and that it is difficult to get the balance right, as we discussed on Second Reading and elsewhere. I will certainly take his points carefully into account. However, my initial inclination is to say that the Secretary of State—whoever that is after the general election, and whatever his party—should have the flexibility to build a body that can properly meet the needs of the industry and carry out its role. 
 I am much more sympathetic to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. The Bill sets a maximum term of five years. When the matter was discussed in the other place, we acknowledged that there was no particular significance in the number five. Indeed, the terms of appointment in the majority of non-departmental public and other similar bodies for which the Home Office has responsibility are nearer to the three years proposed in the amendment than the five years in the Bill. I therefore commit myself to reconsidering the matter. In addition, I am prepared to make a commitment that if the Labour party returns to government, it will be committed to a maximum three-year term of appointment in such circumstances. We will examine changing the legislation to reduce terms from five to three years more generally. 
 The point is powerful and reflects experience, but a proper rotation and a proper time in service are appropriate. I have given my right hon. Friend two commitments. First, a Labour Government would appoint for only a three-year period, despite the power to appoint for a maximum of five years. Secondly, we will consider tabling an amendment on Report. With that, I hope that he will withdraw—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South does not need to withdraw amendment No. 30, because it is grouped with the amendment No. 10.

Charles Clarke: I apologise for not being clear about that, Mr. Winterton. I hope, however, that my comments go some way to dealing with my right hon. Friend's concerns. I think that I am right in saying that Conservatives in the other place also favoured a three-year maximum term. I hope that Conservative Members on the Committee will acknowledge that I am trying to respond to that view.

Nick Hawkins: I certainly acknowledge that the Minister is trying to be helpful. He is not, at this stage, prepared to go quite as far as we would like, but he correctly described the attitude of my noble Friends to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South.
 I hope that the Minister and his officials will reflect further on the precise numbers. I genuinely think that there is a need for consistency between the new authorities that the Home Office is creating. I do not seek to press the point further, and will withdraw the amendment with the proviso that we might return to it on Report if the Government do not table their own amendment.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, because I first intend to call the right hon. Member for Walsall, South to make a few closing comments on amendment No. 30.

Bruce George: Because the Minister was standing up, Mr. Winterton, you could neither see nor hear me falling to the floor with a thud, having heard that he would accept one of my amendments. Having fully recovered, I now express my delight. What else can I do but enthusiastically withdraw the amendment? The score is 18-1. I am on a roll, and I hope to increase it to 18-2 before our proceedings conclude. With great pleasure, and a deep sense of shock, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 30.

Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman does not have to withdraw the amendment; it would not have been put unless he had asked for a Division. I should have been happy to grant one, but as the Minister has conceded the point, there is no need.

Nick Hawkins: I return to what I was saying, Mr. Winterton, when you said that you would call the right hon. Gentleman. With the proviso that I mentioned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bruce George: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
 `(4) In making appointments to the Authority the Secretary of State shall have due regard to the desirability of ensuring the Authority includes persons representative of, or who have experience of
(a) the private security industry,
(b) the police service,
(c) the employees' interest,
(d) the insurance industry,
(e) the consumers' interest,
(f) local authorities
and that no single interest will predominate.'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 31, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
 `(4)(a) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the police in England and Wales; and
(b) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the private security industry in England and Wales.'.
 No. 52, in page 20, line 10, at end insert— 
 `(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the membership of the Authority includes persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of 
 (a) the private security industry 
 (b) the police service in England and Wales 
 (c) the employees' interest
(d) the insurance industry 
 (e) the consumers' interest
(f) local authorities in England and Wales.'.

Bruce George: It has been instructive to be a member of this Committee, and my knowledge of procedure has doubled. Sadly, that knowledge is superfluous, as I have no intention of sitting on another Standing Committee for a considerable time—not because of your Chairmanship, Mr. Winterton, which is an inducement, but because I find Select Committees more edifying.

Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman is being brave. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), the Government Whip, was listening when he said that he had no intention of sitting on further Standing Committees. The Whip might have found his contributions to this Committee so entertaining that, in another Parliament, what will then be the Opposition Whips Office will call on him a lot more.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. We have been most interested to hear that, but it is not relevant to the amendment.

Bruce George: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Winterton. I did not divert the Committee from the straight and narrow.
 We come to the composition of this eagerly sought-after board. As with much of the Bill, what is intended is rather unclear. The amendment would describe the kind of men and women who should be considered. I am not too exercised about how many members there should be—it could be nine, 10, 11 or 12. In one way, the more the better, because more members will bring with them a wider range of activities and experience and a greater ability to make the authority work. Those who are chosen by the Secretary of State will have to read not only the Bill but the document from the House of Lords telling them what is to be laid down by statutory instrument. If they can survive that, and take up their positions, they will have assumed enormous responsibility. 
 The selection criteria should be such that they ensure that the board is not dominated by one group or another. Although the security industry must be well represented, it must not be in the majority—representatives must include people from all the constituent parts. As the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does its work, I hope that more sectors of the private security industry will be added to the list of those who may undertake licensable conduct. Places should be available for other groups to be represented on the board. 
 That is my thinking in proposing that the private security industry should be well represented. It would be impossible to exclude the police service, the insurance industry, representatives of consumers' interests and local authorities, but will the Minister consider including representatives of employees' interests? 
 Regrettably, we will be licensing not the companies but the employees. They are not well unionised—in fact, they are hardly unionised at all. They do not necessarily have to belong to an official trade union, but I would hope that they would. I must declare an interest. I am a member of the GMB, which, like the Transport and General Workers Union, provides membership services. However, it would be quite wrong to have all the gaffers, owners and retired chief constables on the board without including somebody who works at the security coalface. 
 I hope that the governing principle in the compilation of the list will be to ensure that no single interest dominates and to ensure that the definition of who should be included is broad. If there are not enough places on the board, the establishment of sub-committees—not a plethora, but some—would give the opportunity to those who do not make the main board but who have an enormous contribution to make, to participate at a low cost to the authority and the taxpayer. I believe that that would make this important organisation representative and help it to do a splendid job of work.

Nick Hawkins: I very much support the thinking that lies behind the amendment No. 6. The Committee will realise that amendment No. 31, which is grouped with it, is intended to have a similar effect. We have dealt with these issues previously. We feel very strongly, as do a lot of the trade bodies, including the leading corporate investigation consultancies, that there should be a specific provision to ensure that the industry and the police service are represented. In addition, it does no harm at all to include the other groups that amendment No. 6 would write into the Bill. I have no strong feelings about whether amendment No. 31 or amendment No. 6 should be incorporated, but one or the other should be.
 Should the right hon. Member for Walsall, South listen to the blandishments that I expect the Minister will shortly offer and decide not to press amendment No. 6 to a vote, I will be seeking your approval, Mr. Winterton, for a separate Division on amendment No. 31. That is subject to what the Minister may say. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has his own amendment to deal with, which is also grouped with these other two. 
 I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. We feel strongly about the issue, for similar reasons.

Simon Hughes: The idea that there should be a broad spectrum of people on the authority is clearly widely supported. Amendment No. 52 sets out the same six categories of people as amendment No. 6, and amendment No. 31 sets out at least two of the categories as being prerequisite. We cannot leave the matter entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It looks bad and it allows for abuse. As it stands, the Bill does not include proper controls.
 This is the first piece of legislation dealing with this industry. The core provision of the legislation, without which the rest cannot happen, is to set up the regulatory body. Whatever the precedent may be, it must be better for that body to be representative. I need not elaborate the point. I want the Minister to explain why on earth we cannot have minimum criteria for the representative categories on the authority. That would at least allow for proper consultation about who should come from each of the sectors, which would be represented and be able to make nominations. 
 My supplementary point concerns the procedure for appointments, which will be public appointments to a quango. What, under the new rules, are the procedures for nominations and for scrutinising them? What is the procedure for advice on appointments? What procedure is in place as regards minimum qualifications and other considerations to ensure that people are perceived to be fit and proper candidates? Will there be a declaration of relevant interests and the like? 
 Let us please move from total discretion on the part of the Minister to a much more transparent and appropriately represented system. If he thinks that there are obvious omissions, he should tell us so that we can table a better amendment on Report—I would be happy to do that. What criteria and public processes exist to ensure that those appointed, by whatever means, are fit and proper people and are seen to be so? Such criteria will be necessary to give the authority the reputation and respect that it will need to do its job for the purposes that we intend.

Charles Clarke: There are some interesting points in the amendments, and I shall deal with some of the more straightforward ones immediately.
 We are clear about the fact that the form of appointment mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is the standard Nolan process. That should obviate many of his concerns about the potential corruption of a decision by a Secretary of State to nominate someone. 
 It is clear from everything that has happened that the Secretary of State will look for someone who has experience of the industry and who comes from one of the wide range of organisations set out in amendments Nos. 6 and 52. He will also be looking for a broad range of representation on the authority, in precisely the way set out in the amendments. 
 My first proposition is to make a case for the flexibility that we have discussed. Flexibility is important, although it can be contested as an abuse or for leaving too much open. However, under the system in this country, the flexibility of the Executive to address such matters is a positive, not a negative factor.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister seemed to be making a general statement about flexibility. In the light of that, will he not concede that his case is somewhat undermined once again by the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which was recently introduced by none other than himself. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 4, on the Central Police Training and Development Authority, does not give such flexibility. It requires two people to represent the interests of the police authorities, two to represent those of chief constables and one Crown servant. If that was appropriate for that authority, why not for the SIA?

Charles Clarke: For the very good reason that I gave earlier. Police training springs from the tripartite nature of our police system, which involves chief constables, police authorities and the Government. That new police training authority is very narrow and has a narrow but important responsibility. That is in strong contrast to the regulatory body that we are establishing.
 Leaving aside the general arguments for flexibility, I want to make two important points that flow directly from the wording of amendment No. 6. There are different emphases in the amendments. Amendment No. 6 uses the words 
``ensuring the Authority includes persons representative of, or who have experience of'' 
the various categories. Amendment No. 52 includes the significantly different phrase: 
``whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of''. 
That raises the issue of what type of body the authority will be. It is important that we do not simply see it as an agglomeration of representatives of various interests. To take an obvious question, which has been the subject of entertaining exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, is the Transport and General Workers Union or the GMB a more appropriate representative of employees in the industry? 
 In amendment No. 6, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South speaks of 
``persons representative of . . . the private security industry'', 
and in amendment No. 52, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey speaks of 
``persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of . . . the private security industry''. 
The slight differences in those two formulations are important. The question concerns who is represented and the nature of that representation. One of the criticisms of the quango structure is that such bodies are less executive and represent a wide range of interests rather than taking action. I would argue positively for an executive authority to carry out the proposals that we have set out in the Bill rather than a representative body. 
 Determining who is representative in that sense is a major difficulty and it raises non-trivial questions on each of the categories set out in the Bill. Most people accept that the Association of Chief Police Officers is the appropriate body to represent the police, although some might argue that the Police Federation or the Police Superintendents Association is more appropriate in certain circumstances.

Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend should rest assured that the trade unions are probably better equipped to sort out such problems. The Transport and General Workers Union and its sister union the GMB have a long history of being able to decide which of them would be appropriate. That should not be a problem.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I, too, have attended drinks parties hosted jointly by the GMB and the TGWU at which such matters have been sorted out amicably and effectively—earlier or later in the evening, according to the difficulty of the problem. It is a tribute to the trade union movement that it can resolve such problems. Consumers are represented by the National Consumer Council or the Consumers Association, but they are different types of body—that is another non-trivial question. I do not cavil at the word ``representative'', but it is not quite the right way to go about it—a fact that is implied by the different formulations of amendments Nos. 6 and 52.

Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister noticed the other distinction between the amendments. Amendment No. 52 would impose a requirement:
 ``The Secretary of State shall ensure that''. 
Amendment No. 6 states that the Secretary of State 
``shall have due regard to the desirability of''. 
My amendment would be tighter. Whatever the number of members above six, six of them will come from the six sectors mentioned in the amendment.

Charles Clarke: I hear the point, and I note the distinction, but I shall come in a moment to another that is at least as important.

John Bercow: I am a little perturbed, as most of us must be, that the Minister, probably inadvertently, should have outed himself by saying that he attended joint drinks parties of the TGWU and the GMB. It is a distinctly old Labour characteristic. That might explain the otherwise inexplicable absence of his name from articles by two respected political journalist in The Sun and the Daily Mail—respectively, Mr. Trevor Kavanagh and Mr. David Hughes. He did not feature in their recent speculation about imminent promotions.

Charles Clarke: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman's efforts to promote me must have ensured that any speculation about me was removed from consideration. I am delighted that that is so, and I thank him for the work that he has done to achieve it. I have always described myself as modernising old Labour.
 The more substantive distinction between the amendments is serious and revealing. Amendment No. 6 reflects a powerful and important argument, which my right hon. Friend has made not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. The final phrase of the amendment states: 
``and that no single interest will predominate''. 
The thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument—he will correct me if I misunderstand him—has been that the independence and autonomy of the authority is a critical factor in its successfully carrying out its functions under the legislation. It is significant that that phrase does not occur in amendment No. 52. I agree that that amendment, with its tighter definitions, would have a rounded effect, and I do not charge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey with a deliberate attempt to take us away from independence. 
 The same cannot be said of amendment No. 31, however, which was tabled by the Conservatives. It does not list the private security industry, the police service, the employees' interest and so on, as the other amendments do. It simply relates to the police and the private security industry. A major thrust of the debate has been that bodies other than the police and the private security industry should be represented on the authority. 
 The Government are absolutely determined that the body will be independent, and that no single interest will predominate on it. I am at one with the spirit of amendment No. 6, which argues a critical position. However, that is in opposition to amendment No. 31, which refers to only two important parts of the ``family'' with which we are trying to deal. 
 I make the general argument for rejecting all the amendments on grounds of flexibility. That has been especially contested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, I have two specific arguments. The first is about the difficulty of establishing such a representative process. It would be undesirable for the authority to be seen as representative and nominated in such a way, because we want it to be, in effect, an executive body. The increase in its effectiveness will go with ensuring that we pick the right people to carry that through. The second argument is about the single interest predominating. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for the fact that only his amendment, No. 6, pays specific attention to that. I hope that hon. Members will vote against amendment No. 31, if the hon. Member for Surrey Heath presses it to a vote—he implied that he would try to—because it does not do so.

Simon Hughes: My amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South set out six categories of people. Does the Minister regard it as necessary or useful for people with that relevant experience or background to be included, to ensure that there is more than mere abstract representation? What guarantee is there that the authority will not be composed of the great and good, as others are? For example, the long process for the people's peers ended up with exactly the sort of names from the top shelf that we would have had with no process at all.

Charles Clarke: The people's peers were appointed under a different process. We do not propose to nominate any hairdressers. There is a serious point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me to commit to inclusion of all the groups that have been mentioned in amendments Nos. 6 and 52. I commit to that, absolutely and without qualification. All the interests have a direct part to play and cover exactly the range of people that we would consider when establishing a direct body.
 On the point about the people's peers, it may be appropriate to appoint a door steward to the group, rather than necessarily someone from a trade union. It is more likely that one would consider the latter, but I can see an argument for one or two members of the authority having direct and immediate experience of carrying out such responsibilities.

Ian Stewart: Lay trade unionists.

Charles Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, some members could be lay trade unionists rather than trade union officials. I commit to the range of interests and experience on the authority that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants. It is critical that it has that, so that it has the independence that my right hon. Friend has argued for throughout the process.
 However, I ask my right hon. Friend to think about the word ``representative''. It is a difficult word in the context of how one deals with the issues, not only for employees but in all other aspects. For example, it may be better to have someone from a private security company rather than someone from the trade association, in certain circumstances. I do not say anything on the subject trivially. 
 I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments to a vote and will accept my arguments and the assurances that I have tried to give. In the event that they do press them, I will ask my colleagues to vote against them.

Bruce George: I knew that my luck could not last that long. I scored perhaps one goal and hit the woodwork with my last shot, which was a speculative effort from 50 yards. I understand what the Minister said. Mine was a probing amendment, and the Home Office will ultimately decide the issue. I accept that the word ``representative'' is perhaps inappropriate.
 My perspective over the years has been that the security industry has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point of regulation. I have always been of the view that its members would be more likely to endorse statutory regulation by a regulatory authority, which most of them resisted and some still do, if they felt that their voice would at least be seriously listened to. The industry is fragmented, but a three-year period of office would mean that its different sectors would realise that their turn would come and that they would have the opportunity at least to comment on the serious issues of the day that affected them. In that sense, I am reasonably happy with what the Minister said. 
 The Minister's comments have also reassured me that my nightmare scenario will not become a reality. I want the private security industry to be represented, but I do not want it to become the regulatory authority as it transfers from self-regulation to statutory regulation, and I am assured that that will not happen. I do not want members of the industry to provide one of their own from the list of the great and the good. Such a person could influence events directly or, more likely, indirectly, particularly in the second term, when the Home Office's influence declines somewhat. That would be a disaster because people would say that nothing had changed and that self-regulation had been transformed into statutory self-regulation. The Minister is aware of those criteria. I look forward to seeing who is chosen as chairman, who the board members are and what bodies they derive from, if not represent. 
 I do not mind withdrawing the amendment, because I never thought that it was likely to be incorporated into the Bill. However, I have got the point over and I have been considerably reassured that my nightmare will not become a reality. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 20, line 10, at end insert— 
 `(4)(a) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the police in England and Wales; and 
 (b) At least one of the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be a person whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of the private security industry in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bruce George: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 21, line 26, at end insert—
`(c) powers to appoint directly members of its staff to be inspectors for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as the authority may determine.'.
 As I have discussed the inspectorate—although not in detail—I shall not repeat my remarks, except for one point. There is a plethora of inspectorates operating within the private security industry, all of which are self-regulatory. Most are linked to business interests in the security industry: the large employers to BSIA Ltd and the insurance industry to the National Approval Council for Security Systems. NACOSS and the inspectorate of the security industry, which is derived from BSIA, have formed a joint inspectorate that would be keen to be appointed as the inspectorate. Indeed, I have no objection to the expertise in those organisations being incorporated in the inspectorate. However, I am delighted by the Minister's comments that whoever is appointed to the inspectorate will be employed, pensioned and under the control of the SIA. That will give the inspectorate the legitimacy and independence that is an essential pre-condition for its success. 
 The inspectorate will be crucial. It needs competent, enthusiastic and qualified personnel who know the wiles of the security industry. Such people cannot be plucked out of other industries. It takes a long time to get to know policing and security; it is not something that can be learned quickly. There should be a regional inspectorate attached to Government offices such as the Government office for the west midlands. As I have said, such an inspectorate should not employ 10 people; the figure should be nearer to 100. We should not worry if the work force is that large because the more, better-trained employees there are, the better job they will do, in which case the inspectorate would be serving the SIA, and the public interest would also be served.

Charles Clarke: I want to make two or three points in response to my right hon. Friend. First, the Bill already takes account of the aim of the amendment, which is to allow the authority to appoint its own staff as inspectors. I draw the Committee's attention to paragraph (9)(1), which states:
 ``The Authority may, to such extent as it may determine, delegate any''—
 I emphasise ``any''— 
``of its functions to any committee of the Authority or to any employee of the Authority.'' 
The relevant functions are established in clause 19(1), which we discussed earlier. It states that 
``a person authorised in writing for the purpose by the Authority may enter any premises owned or occupied by any person appearing to him to be a regulated person''. 
The authorised persons will be the inspectors who enforce the licensing and approval regimes. The current legislation makes it clear that the authority can decide to appoint and use its own employees as inspectors, should it choose to do so. 
 The second point, which I made during our discussion of clause 19, is that the new authority must have inspection arrangements that are independent of the industry that it is inspecting. However, as my right hon. Friend said, the authority must have the knowledge and understanding of the industry to be able to inspect it effectively. It is a matter for the authority to establish an inspectorate that is fully under its control, but it is also for the authority to decide how to do that. It may create its own in-house inspection regime or it may try to work with one or more of the existing industry inspectorates. Indeed, it may try a combination of the two or a variety of different approaches. 
 The key point, which my right hon. Friend made, is that the inspection process must be under the specific control of the authority in order to achieve independence. It might be of interest to the Committee to recall paragraph 74 of the explanatory notes, which states: 
 ``The public service manpower necessary to staff the Authority is estimated at between 90 and 110 persons.'' 
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that the authority will employ every inspector, but it will have control and will be empowered to take such a route if it wishes to do so. However, we are not trying to pre-judge those relationships. I hope that that is clear, and I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend if necessary.

Bruce George: I shall need to consider the Minister's arguments carefully. At the moment, I am not entirely convinced that an inspectorate from the private sector could be brought under the control of the SIA. Personnel who are part of an existing inspectorate should be chosen for their expertise and brought directly within the employ of the SIA. As a result, one could be certain that their bosses—those who determine their activities—were the regulators.
 I am concerned about the prospect of a hybrid. The question of control might arise, even though a fee was paid to an employer, which might be a self-regulatory body. That would certainly not be popular, but inspectors should be seen to come from the industry, notwithstanding the question of hybridity. Until I have a good deal more evidence to the contrary, I shall remain convinced that this provision is a worrying prospect. I look forward to the Minister's clarification.

Charles Clarke: I can indeed offer some clarification. First, the option that my right hon. Friend describes is entirely possible, and I can envisage its taking place. Secondly, the Bill as drafted allows for it unequivocally and directly, even without his amendment. He said that an arrangement involving those employed directly and others from existing associations is not desirable, and although I hear what he says, that, too, is a possibility. However, the authority will resolve matters at the relevant time. I accept the force of his argument, but at this stage we do not think that his is the only approach. I accept the aim behind his amendment, and nothing in the Bill should make that less possible to achieve. Indeed, we believe that the Bill is consistent with that aim.
 In the light of those comments, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment. If he will not, I hope that he will consider my arguments carefully, and I am happy to continue the discussion at a later date.

Bruce George: I am not entirely reassured, and I shall talk to the Minister and others, but I do not want to press the amendment to a vote at this stage. I hope that the Minister, or his successor, will realise that my approach is the better one. Sucking up to the industry will make some very happy, but it will make me and others very unhappy. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton: We come to amendment No. 11, which is also in the name of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South.

Bruce George: I do not want to move amendment No. 11.

Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman does not wish to move his amendment, so amendment No. 11 is not moved.

Bruce George: I am in no way questioning your authority, Mr. Winterton, even though I might wish to do so. However, given that the best amendment that I tabled—on the complaints committee—has bitten the dust, may I make a four-paragraph contribution on the schedule?

Nicholas Winterton: That particular amendment was not selected because it was not considered appropriate. If the right hon. Gentleman briefly refers to what he would have said had the amendment been selected, I will not have time to rule him out of order.
 Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Bruce George: Thank you, Mr Winterton. My point is a matter of detail: at the moment, who does one complain to about a misdemeanour or crime against the private security industry? It is important to address that in the Bill and, if the Minister is interested, perhaps he will table an amendment on the complaints committee—which is not an appeals committee. I have gone into considerable detail on the matter, which should make further explanations superfluous.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister has heard what the right hon. Gentleman said and that he will respond.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister set out the Government's latest thinking on the timetable for the recruitment, the composition, the work and the full functioning of the security industry authority?

Charles Clarke: I assure my right hon. Friend that I will carefully consider what he has said and whether it might be appropriate to table an amendment later.
 I am in no position to give further information on the timetable. I can only say that, assuming the Bill receives Royal Assent, we intend to move as rapidly as possible in establishing the authority. There is no motive for delay. The whole industry and other interested parties want to see action on this matter. I will be happy to write to the Committee on that matter before Report.

John Bercow: How many potential candidates for membership of the authority have thus far been earmarked?

Charles Clarke: None. As I indicated, the Nolan process will be in operation, and we shall go through the normal process of advertising in that context. No one has been earmarked, or even considered, as far as I know.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a half-helpful answer. Given the practicalities, what is the earliest time by which he would expect the authority to be functioning? I understand all the constraints, but will he also give us the latest date by which the industry can expect the authority to be up and running and the process of registration to be in place.

Charles Clarke: It is difficult to be precise but the fairest thing to say is that it will be difficult to establish the authority, get it going, and have it functioning effectively before the middle or end of 2002. Practically, it may even be later. I assure the Committee that we will be moving with maximum expedition. The process of establishing a new organisation and appointing a new authority takes time, and there is no way around that, as the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge.

Simon Hughes: I am sorry, but it seems right to raise this final self-contained question, given the Minister's previous reply. Have the Government allowed for the administrative costs of the authority in their planning? I know that it will recoup its costs, but what running costs does the Minister imagine will fall to the authority, as opposed to other supplementary elements? Has a yearly figure been worked out?

Charles Clarke: Paragraphs 72 and 73 of the explanatory notes state:
 ``The Security Industry Authority will be self-financing from fees'' 
as the hon. Gentleman indicated, and it continues: 
 ``Funding estimated at £1m is required to establish the Authority and an additional £1.2m to £1.7 to cover a first year operating deficit. These monies will be recoverable through fees. 
 There are also likely to be annually recurring and non-recoverable public expenditure costs of between £0.5m and £0.7m for court costs and possible legal aid involved in any prosecution arising from the new offences created.'' 
I have nothing to add to that at this juncture. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 - Activities liable to control under the Act

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 25, line 17, leave out ``Subject to sub-paragraph (2),''.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in page 25, line 20, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
 No. 42, in page 25, line 27, at end insert— 
 ``(4) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (2), the Secretary of State shall consult: 
 (a) The Authority; 
 (b) Persons whom he considers to represent the interests of the private security industry in England and Wales; 
 (c) Persons whom he considers to represent the interests of the police in England and Wales.''.

John Bercow: The amendments relate to the Secretary of State's power to add or exclude activities from the proposed licensing regime by affirmative order. There is a distinction between amendments Nos. 40 and 41 on the one hand and amendment No. 42 on the other. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are essentially probing amendments. We recognise that the affirmative resolution procedure will apply, but would like some idea of what new activities it is envisaged could be included in the licensing regime. Is the provision to which the amendments relate a vehicle to allow alarm installers to be included at some future stage? Comments that have so far been made suggest that that might be the case, and I would welcome clarification from the Minister.
 Amendment No. 42, as can readily be seen, would require specific consultation before such an order is made under the affirmative procedure. We contend that, before making an order under sub-paragraph (2), the Secretary of State should consult three categories of representative. Those three interests are the Security Industry Authority itself, persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the private security industry in England and Wales and representatives of the police. That seems reasonable, and we would like a better inkling of what the Government have in mind. I await disclosure, as I ordinarily do on such occasions, with eager anticipation, bated breath and beads of sweat upon my brow. I am sure that the Minister will speedily meet my need.

Charles Clarke: In the light of the interesting description of the physical symptoms that the hon. Gentleman displays, I am not sure that I want to fulfil his ambitions. I am, however, fascinated by his approach to such matters, and am keen to do whatever I can to help him with any pills and tablets that I have at my disposal.
 On amendments Nos. 40 and 41, it is important that the legislative framework that underpins the regime is flexible enough to take account of future developments and decisions in the industry. That is why sub-paragraph (2) enables the Secretary of State to amend the list of activities that are designated for licensing purposes. One function of the SIA is to keep the framework under review. During its work it may identify sectors in the industry that are causing concern and recommend that they be brought within the licensing regime. Equally importantly, the SIA might recommend that an activity currently listed in schedule 2 be removed from the list as it is no longer a cause for concern. The legislation should be able to deal with both eventualities.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: I shall give way when I have finished my remarks on amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
 The amendments would delete the power to make orders in relation to schedule 2. That would fossilise the Bill in so far as it affects which sectors of the private security industry are regulated. If the amendment were passed, no sector—including in-house van guards, alarm installers and others that the hon. Gentleman might mention—could be added into the regulatory framework other than through new primary legislation. Similarly, no sector could be taken out of regulation, if that were thought desirable, except by a new Act of Parliament. We need to be able to respond flexibly to developments in the industry, and paragraph (1) allows us to do so. Of course, the power to make orders by statutory instrument is subject to affirmative resolution. 
 Amendment No. 42 would require the Secretary of State to consult the authority, the industry and the police. As I have said before, the authority could only work properly to discharge its remit if it acted sensibly after consulting widely. I have also made it clear that the industry, the police and others will be represented on the authority, and that a series of committees will provide additional vehicles for interested parties to feed their views into the authority. We are therefore entirely confident that when the Secretary of State lays any order before Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure, the interested parties will have been fully involved in the process. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing amendment No. 40 and will not press amendment No. 41, because they would unnecessarily restrict the ability of the organisation to deal with the changing world. The fundamental issue addressed by amendment No. 42 is already covered by the Bill, and by a wide range of shared commitments across the House.

John Bercow: As I said, amendments Nos. 40 and 41 were designed to probe, not to be interpreted as a literal requirement. The Minister has responded to the thrust of my argument broadly satisfactorily, and I understand his point about amendment No. 42. On the strength of his remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bruce George: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 26, line 21, at end insert—
 `In-house security operatives
 2A Without prejudice to paragraph 2 this paragraph applies (subject to the following provisions of this paragraph) to the activities of an operative providing manned guarding activities where he provides those services exclusively for an employer who is not a private security employer.'.
 One of the deficiencies of the Bill relates to in-house security. The amendment would include in the Bill a matter that was covered in the consultative paper but somehow disappeared when the Bill was introduced. Many companies providing man guarding have gone from contract to in-house security, then back to contract, and many have contract security working alongside in-house security on the same premises. When I visited Rolls-Royce in Derby, it had both in-house and contract security and the system was working well. 
 Contract security is subject to statutory controls, which can be costly and demanding--companies have to pay licence fees and are required to provide rigorous training—but in-house security does not carry those obligations. To be fair, in-house security is generally very good, because the workers have a loyalty to the premises and to the company. They tend to be rather older than contract security guards because they have stayed on in the factory, and will be on good wages as they have benefited from the rates negotiated by the trade unions. That makes it attractive for some companies to dump their in-house security and shift it to contract. I fear that there may a reverse move from contract to in-house security, for the simple reason that the costs of contract will be higher. I am not talking about good companies with good in-house security, but bad companies, both large and small, which will suddenly be enormously attracted to in-house security because it is cheaper. 
 It is illogical for in-house and contract security to be on a different basis. Unscrupulous operators will exploit the loophole. There will be confusion among the public, and other agencies will want to know who is in-house and who is contract, especially when both are working in close proximity within the same organisation. Some organisations might replace contract security officers with in-house officers, defeating the legislation's objectives. 
 Countries that have recently begun to regulate their industry have wanted to regulate contract and not in-house. Those that started earlier, however, have gone through a process of maturation and, realising that contract and in-house guarding cannot be separated, have belatedly included in-house security. One of the best regulatory systems is, perhaps surprisingly, in South Africa. It began with contract security and produced an enormous report. Ironically, I was quite helpful with that, not in explaining what regulation there was in this country—which would have taken only five minutes—but because of my interest in regulation around the world. South Africa has now realised that in-house must be included. 
 In Queensland, an evaluation of the Security Providers Act 1993 found significant concerns arising from the exclusion of in-house security. A survey of Australian legislation showed that both New South Wales and South Australia regulate in-house security. 
 In British Columbia, Canada, an extensive inquiry into the regulatory system recommended that 
``the province amend the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act to regulate the competence and accountability of both employers and employees within the in-house or proprietary sector.'' 
In Spain, which also has a superb regulatory system and does not want in-house security excluded, in-house security operations have to constitute themselves into private security companies so that they are subject to regulation. That is an unusual idea. 
 There are now neighbourhood wardens throughout our country, mostly funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Home Office. Is it not rather strange that, although those who are in-house usually have good standards, some may be contracted? I cannot imagine a contract security company wanting to do the duties that in-house neighbourhood wardens have to perform in my constituency with 20 days of training. 
 It is very important that in-house security is magically restored and put back on the screen. I hope that that will happen. Given its importance in the Government's strategy for combating crime, there must be high standards of competence and security personnel must be of good character. Statutory regulation is essential to achieve that. If the Government are not prepared to license all in-house employees, they should at least consider licensing those who regularly come into contact with the public. 
 Some 180 organisations have responded to the Government's consultative paper. They cover in-house security personnel, and include most of the major interests. Of those, five were opposed to regulating in-house security: the Theatrical Management Association and Society of London Theatre, the Museums and Galleries Commission, the National Trust, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions and a member of the public. 
 Five out of the 180 wanted in-house excluded; so in our democracy, five outvoted 175. The sixth was the better regulation taskforce, whose voice counts for more than the other 175, so in-house security was somehow deleted. I hope that, when the legislation passes, the regulatory authority will have second thoughts and include in-house security. I hope that the time will come—and come soon—when all contract and in-house security guards are subject to the same regulatory regime.

Simon Hughes: I am sympathetic to the amendment for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. As people in the security industry do a job that brings them into contact with the wider public—not just with their fellow employees—they should be subject to the same general approval. I can see the argument against that. When a company employs people directly, they have all the terms and conditions before them and are governed by the usual rules of company employment, which include the security of interresponsibility between employees. It does not seem to me, however, that the amendment would necessarily be more burdensome. It may be rejected on the ground that regulation exists, and no doubt the better regulation taskforce will point out any additional regulations. Although I accept that the amendment would produce a slight increase in administrative responsibility, the logic of the case has been made.
 We shall shortly reach the group of amendments that relate to the companies that provide the security industry's range of services, even though that is not their main range. An increasing number of companies in the construction industry, such as large building and surveyors companies with international contracts, used to do building work and provide professional surveying advice, and are now facilities companies offering a package of services. They may take up a contract in the middle east and do everything from obtaining planning permission, if that is required, to the final signing over of the building. They will subcontract in everyone from lift contractors to the suppliers of public utilities. Likewise, in this country many people offer a service to take over an operation. They may take over a national health service building, or an office block across the river, and look after the whole operation, providing all services—catering, cleaning and so on. There is no guarantee that the employer is used to dealing with such work. It is therefore at risk if it is not well done, as it would be in other sectors. 
 I hope that the Minister understands the importance of this issue. Are the Government simply not yet persuaded of the case, do they think that it should not happen in the first wave, or have they a more fundamental objection to the amendment? If it is the latter, he might suggest how such an objection could be overcome by argument and persuasion. 
 As a post-script, if the Government resist the amendment and the Secretary of State later decides that there should be an alteration, is there an opportunity in the Bill to amend the future Act through secondary legislation and introduce the category identified in the amendment?

Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the Minister to reply, I want to make a plea to the Committee. We have five groups of amendments, and I would like to have them all moved and followed by a ministerial answer. That can only be achieved if self-discipline is exercised by Committee members.

Charles Clarke: I shall be brief because we have debated at some length the subject of the amendments on Second Reading and in previous Committee sittings. I shall not return to the arguments at great length. The reason why we decided not to include in-house security, following the publication of the White Paper, was because we thought that two vetting processes—by the employer and the authority—might be unduly burdensome. We regulate some in-house staff such as door supervisors and wheelclampers. However, we did not think that that argument extended any further.
 I accept many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, as I did at Second Reading and in previous Committee debates. The SIA will have a duty to keep the industry and the operation of the legislation under review. 
 I emphasise the point that I made on Second Reading to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey--we are not closed to the arguments in favour of regulating in-house staff. However, that would not be right at this stage. The Bill is flexible, and paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2 allows that issue to be addressed by secondary legislation--it would not need further primary legislation. I have no doubt that the authority will receive arguments about in-house staff, and the Government will be happy to listen to its views in due course. The developmental method is a coherent and positive approach for us to take. 
 I shall make a final point about the better regulation task force before it becomes guilty for all sins of omission. To defend it—and I had to give evidence to it about the possible content of the Bill—it argues that before putting systems of regulation, which could be oppressive, on sections of industry, one must have a good case. That is important in terms both of initial functionality and ensuring that regulation does not destroy the efficiency of particular sectors of industry. That is the position of the taskforce. Indeed, it is a good position that allows further argument and development over time. 
 We have set up a process that allows us to say that criminality in a certain sector is of such concern that we want to tackle it in a different way. It also allows us to say that we have found a better way of regulating that does not involve both the authority and the employer in the process, which is the right way to address the issue. To avoid all doubt, I can tell the Committee that if such arguments were made to bring the sector within the Bill, it would not require further primary legislation. It could be done with secondary legislation on the recommendation of the authority with the proper consultation. With that in mind, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Bruce George: I am experiencing deja vu. I profoundly disagree with the arguments made by the Minister and the better regulation task force. The Government perceive the Bill as legislation that will reduce crime. That is, of course, a major factor, but it also concerns the efficiency and accountability of the industry. Merely to say that there has been insufficient evidence of criminality to encourage us to do x, y and z is to put an argument similar to that in the Green paper in 1979. I hoped that we had moved on from that.
 I hope that the regulatory authority will make a more mature assessment than the better regulation task force, and will do what everybody—well, almost everybody—in the industry wants. It is superfluous to argue further, so I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 27, line 1, after `(c. 41)', insert:
`or of an employee or volunteer working under his supervision.'.
 The amendment is intended to exempt people working under the supervision of legal professionals. Specifically, and it can be stated succinctly, we are discussing provision for private investigations. Paragraph 4(4) states: 
 ``This paragraph does not apply to any activities of a person with a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990''. 
That is intended to exclude legal professionals such as solicitors and others from the provisions of the Bill. 
 The purpose of the amendment is simply to add the protection provided by the provision to employees or volunteers who are working under the supervision of legal professionals. That is what our amendment states and that it is what it is intended to achieve. I look forward to hearing comments from other members of the Committee, and especially to hearing the Minister's response.

Charles Clarke: We recognise the continuing interest of lawyers in the Bill as it relates to them. There was extensive discussion in the other place about the employees of firms of accountants. We took the view that it would not be right to extend a blanket exemption to those employees, because many accountancy firms have diversified to the extent that they provide services that are properly designated activities as defined in the Bill. However, we accept that firms of lawyers are generally somewhat less diversified than accountancy firms. We want to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are targeted on those specialist providers of security services whom we have stated that we wish to regulate and that they do not inadvertently catch groups that are not relevant to our policy aims, including solicitors and the employees of solicitors' firms.

Nick Hawkins: Those in City firms of solicitors would challenge the Minister's assertion that they have not diversified to the same extent as accountants. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the matter further if I tell him that today my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I received a letter from the Institute of Chartered Accountants saying that it supports the amendment, as does the Law Society.

Charles Clarke: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I accept that, in a small number of large practices, there is much greater diversity than there was, say, 20 years ago. However, I would still maintain that some accountancy firms have moved more widely—although that is a pedantic point that I shall not pursue at great length.
 The licensing requirement applies only to those whose main employment is concerned with the activities listed in the Bill. It does not apply to in-house staff except those in the door supervision and wheelclamping sectors. The amendment would extend the exemption to those employees or volunteers who work under the authority and supervision of a person qualified under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 but who are not themselves qualified under that Act. The exemption for those who are so qualified was included in the Bill for the avoidance of any doubt that those employed in the legal profession were excluded by virtue of the way in which the term ``designated activity'' is drafted. It was clear to us that qualified lawyers are thus excluded on the basis of the drafting of the Bill. 
 The amendment is unnecessary, as the employees whom it seeks to exclude do not in any case fall into the licensing category by virtue of the definitions that are used in the Bill. Any security-related activity as defined in the Bill that the employees of lawyers undertake will, under paragraph 4(9), be incidental to the main purpose of their employment. As we have said previously in Committee, where it is incidental it is not covered. There is a further exemption. Paragraph 4(8) excludes activities carried out with the knowledge or consent of the person about whom the information is sought or every person whose interest in any property has been affected by the loss or damage about which the information is sought. 
 We are therefore satisfied—I am happy again to place it on the record—that employees of solicitors' firms providing services to their employers are excluded by the exemptions, especially by the exemption based on the incidental nature of any security-related work that is undertaken. The incidental nature of the work is the key point. An employee of a solicitor would fall into the licensing category only if he or she had been supplied to another company under contract to supply any of the activities listed in schedule 2. In those circumstances, it would be anomalous for non-solicitors in law firms—or, in a parallel case, as we discussed on Second Reading, non-accountants in accountancy firms—to be exempt from the licensing requirement, as private investigators offering exactly the same services would be caught. Therefore, it would be right for individuals in such limited circumstances to need a licence. 
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the Law Society. I can tell him that Home Office officials have been in contact with the Law Society to discuss the matter, and I understand that it is content that, for the avoidance of any doubt, we ensure that employees of solicitors' firms supplying services to their employers will be excluded when the subordinate legislation commencing the licensing provisions is drafted. I am happy to give that undertaking and to place it on the record. 
 I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Buckingham the assurance that he seeks and that, on that basis, he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow: As was to be expected, the Minister provided an answer, reading closely from his prepared script for the purpose. I am grateful to him for that. However, I am still a little puzzled about whether the work undertaken would be purely incidental to the conduct of the main employment of the individual whom my hon. Friends and I are seeking to protect. The Minister is tending to argue, as is often the case, by advocacy rather than evidence. We shall have to wait to see whether the situation is as he confidently predicts. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his reply and his undertaking to reflect on matters that we have highlighted, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 27, line 8, leave out
``purposes of any accountancy practice''
 and insert 
``sole purposes of accountancy activities''.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in page 28, line 9, leave out
``purposes of any accountancy practice'' 
and insert 
``sole purposes of accountancy activities''.

Simon Hughes: Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 deal with the same objective in two sequential paragraphs of the schedule. The first relates to investigations and the second to security consultants, and both are relevant to the debate to which the Minister referred. They concern a different character of activity in another profession—accountancy.
 The Committee will not be surprised to discover that, like others, I have received representations from people involved in the investigation or security business. I met representatives of the group of leading corporate investigation companies and consultancies, which includes companies such as the Control Risks Group, the Armor Group, DSFX and Kroll Associates. As they rightly pointed out, there has been significant and increasing diversification in the accountancy world, as in many other sectors. Many accountancy companies provide not only accounting services but, for example, business consultation in general and consultancy work in the security industry. 
 On 10 April, the Financial Times—which should be lauded not only because it is based in my constituency, but because it is one of the world's pre-eminent newspapers—included a supplement on corporate security. Page 2 of the supplement lists the top players in the intelligence industry, and in doing so makes it clear that the big five accountants are included. The supplement states: 
 ``Rivals question the large audit firms' long-term commitment to the corporate security market, but all five have built a large presence in this business. All have expanded from their historical base in financial due diligence to offer a broad range of products and services such as high-technology risk consultancy. 
 Their audit arms' client lists and respected names give them easy access to chief executives, but rivals claim such relationships are fraught with potential conflicts. 
 Among the prominent members of this group, much speculation has surrounded PricewaterhouseCoopers' intentions. Under Craig Jacobsen, it has built an investigative staff of about 700, but it is said to have sounded out several other corporate security firms about joint ventures or acquisitions . . . Deloitte & Touche took the unusual step of adding a political risk business last November, hiring Martin Stone from Control Risks. It is known for having a strong IT fraud detection service, and has tried to position itself at the top end of the market.'' 
Certainly, those to whom I spoke said that many of their employees have been poached by accountancy companies, although they were not arguing that to do so is illegal. 
 To allow those employed by accountancy firms to remain exempt would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. My amendments would change the broad definition that permits exemption irrespective of the activity in question, so that exemption would apply to firms that carry out accountancy activities alone. It behoves the Minister to take seriously this matter, which was debated at length in the House of Lords. He should also say whether the Government are willing to consider accepting an amendment such as mine, be it today or on Report, or a slightly different one if mine is technically defective. It would be as big a nonsense as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman to allow a sector, which is clearly now a private security business sector, not to be included.

Charles Clarke: We are discussing difficult professional questions for lawyers, accountants and the IT industry. The task is how to ensure a level playing field, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South argued earlier, while not penalising companies marginally involved in those activities. It is not easy to get that right and that is why we wish to target the Bill at those specialist providers of security services that we have said that we want to regulate.
 As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the exemption for accountants was discussed at length in the other place, and we accepted Opposition concerns that the wording of the schedule—as originally drafted—did not make it adequately clear that we did not want to take accountants into the Bill's regulatory framework. We tabled amendments in the other place to provide a clear exemption for accountants from the definitions of private investigators and security consultants. Those amendments were limited to exemptions for members of relevant accountancy bodies—defined in clause 25—as mentioned by my right hon. Friend earlier. The amendments before us try to refine the exemptions and limit them to activities carried out by accountants for the sole purposes of accountancy. 
 The amendments tabled in the other place in response to concerns were drafted following discussions with a variety of specialist bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and private companies, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority. Those discussions echoed the concerns expressed by Opposition Members in the other place and we received some helpful advice on how to deal with concerns raised. We decided to exclude accountants who were members of accountancy bodies, by virtue of the high level of qualifications that are required to become a member. We accepted that, in the modern, highly complex accountancy world, some accountants may carry out activities that are designated by the provisions of the Bill. However, the problems that would arise from trying to differentiate between an accountant who undertook accountancy work solely and one who diversified into other activities would create significant definitional difficulties for the authority. We therefore decided that, to keep the regulation simple and effective, we should exempt all qualified accountants who are members of a relevant accountancy body. That builds on the existing regulation and ensures that only those with formal qualifications would be excluded from the licensing requirement of the Bill. Employees of accountancy firms who are not members of the relevant accountancy bodies would of course, if hired out under contract, require a licence. 
 I see that the hon. Gentleman does not accept the force of that argument. I am prepared to examine the situation again. However, when he decides whether to press the amendment, I ask him to take into account the fact that the definitional issues are not easy to resolve. We feel that we reached a good position in the other place and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect that in his response. I give him the reassurance, however, that we will look at the situation again and see whether we can achieve further clarification.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the politeness of the Minister's reply. I am absolutely not persuaded that one cannot define companies that carry out accountancy, as opposed to those that carry out accountancy as well as other things. I do not accept that point. The reality is that accountants have the definition. The fact that a person may be qualified, validated and recognised by a professional body does not mean that that person or the firm that he works for are not able do other things. I do not know a huge number of accountancy firms, but those with which I have dealt have expanded and perform a whole range of jobs. Some are included in the list that I have just given.
 I am not persuaded, although I am prepared to be reasonable and to discuss the matter. I ask formally, after the Committee has finished its proceedings, to have an opportunity to go through the matter with the Minister, and possibly to meet him with those people most affected, before Report. I am aware of the time pressure that we are potentially under, but I will definitely want to come back to the matter on Report if assurances are not satisfactory. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance—on the record—that he will meet me, with those affected, even if the time scale is short between now and Report stage.

Charles Clarke: I am happy to give that assurance.

Simon Hughes: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 28, line 1, after second `to', insert `physical'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 32, in page 28, line 5, after `financial', insert `or information security'.

John Bercow: These amendments might be described as the IT security industry amendments. The principle arguments on behalf of the IT security industry have been aired before most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. They do not need to be rehearsed in great detail. However, there is no doubt at all that there is a continuing concern, not least on the part of the Confederation of British Industry, that the IT security industry might ultimately be incorporated within the terms of the Bill, even if that was not originally intended, and despite the fact that no earnest of any such intention was given to the sector. The two amendments would more satisfactorily protect the sector than has been done so far. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the position.
 It is commonplace for members of all parties to invoke the support of large trade associations and representative bodies when it suits them. That is entirely legitimate, and you will know, Mr. Winterton, from your 30 years' service in the House, that the Confederation of British Industry is a prized body to invoke in support of one's argument. We have done it, and the Minister has done it.

Charles Clarke: It is only prized by those who support the corporate state.

John Bercow: I am certainly not an enthusiast for the corporate state, but that does not in any way preclude me from recognising the significant expertise as well as the representative character of the Confederation of British Industry. It is concerned, as I think the Minister will acknowledge, that the Bill could have a damaging impact upon the IT industry, and could hinder the Government's aim to make the United Kingdom the best place in the world in which to conduct e-business.
 The argument is simple. The current wording of the Bill necessitates the amendment, as it is unclear whether the Bill covers people working in information technology such as systems administrators and IT support staff, whose duties range from the building of firewalls to the protection of a network from attack to educating employees on what sort of passwords to use. Given the difficulty that some businesses already have in recruiting specialised and experienced IT professionals, any proposal that endangers that species and makes their recruitment more difficult would exacerbate the present problem and should, if at all possible, be avoided by the Government. 
 We all know that there was extensive consultation in advance of the introduction of the Bill. We do not dispute that, and we have debated the Bill on many occasions. However, that consultation—quite properly—was with the organisations that it was envisaged would be affected by the Bill. The IT security sector did not originally expect to be affected and had no reason to think that the Government wanted it to be. However, it is now anxious that it might be. 
 That is a problem. The drafting of the Bill has seemingly inadvertently drawn in the IT security industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath explained during our deliberations last week. Paragraph 5 defines the activities of security consultants as falling under the designated activities of clause 3, the conduct of which without a licence will be against the law. Security consultants are defined as those who give advice about taking security precautions or engaging security operatives. The wording makes no distinctions between physical and information security, or between tangible and intangible assets. 
 It therefore appears possible—I put the point no more strongly than that—that information security consultants, as no specific distinction is made between them and others, and they are not consciously excluded, could fall within the scope of the Bill, as bouncers and wheelclampers do. IT security consultants are not mentioned—the Minister will not dispute that, as it is an incontrovertible fact—in the exemptions to paragraph 5, which, as we know from debate, include exemptions for those giving legal and financial advice and for the activities of an accountancy body. 
 The inclusion of the IT sector is undesirable if it is deliberate, but in a sense is even more so if it is not deliberate. If it happens by default, that is deeply regrettable, as it would mean that no protection of the sector would have been provided alongside the regulatory mechanisms that the Government have decided are appropriate. We want inclusion by inadvertence even less than we want deliberate inclusion. IT security consultants could be licensed under a Bill that has been drafted without their being consulted. 
 The Minister will not be surprised by the fact that I want to refer to remarks that he made on Second Reading. He said that the Government had no current intention of bringing 
``the information security industry within the scope of the new licensing regime established by the Bill''.—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol. 366, c. 974.] 
He went on to insert a significant and—from our point of view, and especially from the industry's—worrying caveat. It was that the Department of Trade and Industry would consult on whether that should be done in future. If it decided so to do, all that would then be required would be to impose a licensing requirement on the information security industry via secondary legislation. An unconsulted sector that did not expect to be threatened would find that it was, and would have precious little, if any, opportunity to do anything about it. The sledgehammer of secondary legislation would bring in regulation, direction and control that the industry never expected to be on the receiving end of. 
 As the Minister knows, the Confederation of British Industry believes, according to its parliamentary brief, that 
``the information security industry . . . Should not be included in a Bill on which it was not consulted . . . Should not be the subject of secondary legislation when it hasn't been consulted on the relevant primary legislation . . . Should not have to show that regulation of this sector isn't needed when those proposing'' 
legislation, or allowing for it, 
``have not had to make the case that it is''. 
It further states that the sector 
 ``Should not be potentially subject to a licensing regime that has come about through oversight rather than a considered and intentional government policy''. 
Those reasons are cogent. The brief says: 
 ``The CBI urges the Standing Committee to amend Schedule 2(5) to include an explicit exemption of IT security consultants. Although the secondary legislation can be drafted to exclude IT security consultants, the fact that the primary legislation was never intended to include IT security in the first place makes it preferable to amend the Bill itself.'' 
That way, we would have an assurance. The sector would have the greater peace of mind that it should enjoy. We ought to be conscious that we have significant power to affect the sector in this place. That power should be used for good and not for ill. I hope that the Committee will act immediately to end the confusion and uncertainty and remove a potential barrier to e-business. 
 At an earlier stage, there was some publicity about the CBI's concerns about the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of what the head of e-business of that organisation, Mr. Hickson, was quoted as saying, which was that he fears that the Government have 
``gone from never having even dreamed of licensing IT security professionals, to proposing it by accident, to essentially challenging the industry to say why the profession shouldn't be licensed''. 
That seems to be an inversion of responsibility. 
 I have tried to make important arguments as briefly as I can. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I am conscious of the fact that—I expect a cheer—this will be my last contribution in the Committee, so I thank you, Mr. Winterton, warmly and genuinely, for your fair, firm, tolerant and robust chairmanship. I say that to someone who I hope is now widely acknowledged in the House of Commons as one of the finest parliamentarians of our time.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure what to say.

Andrew Miller: When I referred to this clause earlier, the hon. Member for Buckingham intervened on me and I undertook to think about his point and to respond. I have a lot of sympathy for his argument, as have several organisations including the British Computer Society, but I think that his solution is wrong for the problem. We must always keep in mind the word ``proportionate'' when considering our responsibilities in legislation, particularly human rights legislation. If we were to accept his solution, we could end up in the ridiculous position of dealing with the security of a cheap piece of plastic, such as a CD, floppy disk or tape, but not with the extremely valuable data it contained. That would create a problem of proportionality.
 The solution lies somewhere in secondary legislation. It would be extremely helpful for the Minister to say unequivocally that at this stage there is no intention to incorporate the IT—

Nicholas Winterton: I am afraid that I must now ask the Minister to respond.

Charles Clarke: These amendments seek to limit the definition of security consultants to those offering advice about the taking of security precautions in relation to physical property. That would exclude those who advise on the security of information, and I interpret that to mean the IT sector. There has been concern in parts of that sector about how, if at all, the Bill applies to them. They are keen to establish whether the Government includes them in the definition of security consultant that is used in paragraph 5 of schedule 2. I had hoped to lay their fears to rest in a statement I made on Second Reading, but I am happy to restate the position. The definition used in the schedule is deliberately broad. We want it to remain useable in the face of changing security systems, in particular those using technology—and I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). We also wish, as a fundamental principle, to ensure that the Bill targets the specialist providers of security services whom we want to regulate, but does not inadvertently catch groups who are not relevant to the aims of our policy.
 The term security consultant, as used in paragraph 5 of schedule 2, means those who give advice about 
``the taking of security precautions in relation to any risk to property or to the person''. 
The licensing requirements under that definition will be brought into effect in due course by regulations, which will specify exactly which activities of security consultants are licensable. Activities not specified will not be licensable. However, as I said on Second Reading, I should like it to be clear to the industry and the Committee that the information security consultancy industry is not under threat of licensing at a future date under the Bill. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. 
 As I said on Second Reading, the Government believe that issues need to be explored with regard to confidence in the information security consultancy industry. That industry has a vital role to play in protecting the new economy from vandalism and other crimes. Our consideration of the Bill has started a valuable debate about how information security consultants can match or exceed the levels of confidence that the Bill will create for other security contractors. For that reason, the Department of Trade and Industry will consult the IT industry about the extent and effectiveness of existing precautions and about whether further action is required. 
 I look forward, as I hope the Committee does, to seeing the result of that consultation. I am certain that that is the best way forward, rather than the solution suggested in the amendments. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Buckingham and that he will withdraw his amendment. We want to work with the industry, rather than against it, to solve these problems.

John Bercow: I have listened carefully, but I am not persuaded by what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, although I shall reflect on it, or by the observations of the Minister. I should therefore like to press the amendment.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:-
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 It being after Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 March] and the Order of the Committee [10 April], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to.

Charles Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Winterton. Although there is no motion to report the Bill, as it is the subject of a programme resolution, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your co-Chairman Mr. Benton, for the way in which you have conducted our proceedings. I think that all members of the Committee feel that we have had a good, orderly, positive and constructive debate. That is attributable not to the way in which we have conducted ourselves but to the way in which you have conducted us.
 I also thank the Doorkeepers and the police, who have ensured that we have been in good order throughout our proceedings—perhaps that is particularly appropriate, given that we were discussing private security—and the Hansard staff, who have had to put up with the Latin definitions and other matters that have been raised by you, Mr. Winterton, and others. We very much appreciate their work. 
 I want to express my particular appreciation of the work of the Clerks, because these matters are not straightforward and their guidance has been crucial. I also give especial thanks to my officials at the Home Office and in my private office, who have worked so hard and so effectively on these matters. I want to place that on the record. In that context, it is appropriate to pay tribute to those who have worked with other members of the Committee and to those organisations that have engaged with us and helped our dialogues and discussions. 
 I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and other hon. Members, who have helped and worked tremendously hard to keep us informed. 
 Finally, I would like to thank everybody who has participated in the Committee. Throughout our proceedings the Opposition spokespeople, the Government Members and the Opposition Back Benchers tried to ensure that we were scrutinising the Bill as fully and completely as possible. As I said, Mr. Winterton, particular thanks are due to you and your colleague, Mr. Benton, for your conduct of our affairs.

Nick Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Winterton. I echo the Minister's thanks to you and your co-Chairman Mr. Benton, which I am sure you will pass on. I would also like to thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and police, and all those who have contributed to the debate. I agree with the Minister that this has been a sensible and constructive Committee in which a variety of members have made useful contributions. The House will better informed on Report. The Minister and his officials have given helpful indications and they will no doubt burn the midnight oil between now and Report to comply with all the undertakings that have been made.
 This Committee has been a good example of how Standing Committees should operate. We nearly made it without programming, although my party is opposed to routine programming. The Minister and the Opposition thought that the number of sittings was about right, and only two groups of amendments were left to the end of this afternoon's sitting, with what Whips Offices often refer to as fingertip control—guided by you, Mr. Winterton. That shows what a constructive effort we have made to scrutinise this important Bill thoroughly. I should like to thank all members of the Committee for their assistance.

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Winterton. I shall be brief. [Laughter.] I thank you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton. I thank also the civil servants, who are always there to provide answers to questions for which the Minister's brief did not prepare him. I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy. An important Bill, long in gestation, has been dealt with in one of the least confrontational ways of any Home Office Bill that I can remember. I am glad that there was such consensus, and I am grateful for the Committee's expedition. Within limits, there is some merit in programming motions. We should never commit ourselves to doing too much—it could be a straightjacket—although a little pressure from time to time does nobody any harm.

Bruce George: Further to that point of order, Mr. Winterton. Having been forcibly denied those two groups of superb amendments, which I was desperate to move, I should like to apologise to my colleagues for detaining them for longer than Back Benchers usually detain Chairmen and Committee members. They have been very tolerant.
 I should like to thank the private security industry, without whose obstructionism and opposition the Bill could have been on the statute book 15 years ago. It has finally moved with the times, and I congratulate it. I had forgotten the difference between Select Committees and Standing Committees. I only wish that Select Committee members were accorded the same deference, bordering on sycophancy, that you have received over the past few days, Mr. Winterton. It is quite disgusting. I will not join in, other than to say that what Robert Peel was to the police force in 1829, the names of Clarke, Straw and Winterton will be to the private security industry in 2001. It was an important Committee—too rushed, but at least the legislation will be on the statute book. It is now up to others to make the good legislation that the security industry and the public deserve.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank all Committee members for their kind and generous words. I have found it fun, and I know that my co-Chairman Mr. Benton enjoyed the sittings that he chaired. I am pleased that you believe, as I do, that it has been a constructive and positive Committee. I congratulate all who have participated in the debates. The Minister, the Opposition spokesmen and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey have all put in a great deal of work. The House will benefit from our debates.
 I thank the Hansard staff, the Doorkeepers and the police. I shall not thank the officials—I left that to the Minister and he has done it very well. I thank hon. Members for their generous comments, and I look forward to the next occasion. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported, pursuant to the Order of the House [28 March]. 
The Committee rose at nine minutes past Seven o'clock.